It’s not rocket surgery.
I don’t think it’s inevitable. I think it’s something decidedly different.
You create an intellectual representation of reality, and your representation consists of inert matter forming a universe. Then you assume that your own experience, or qualia, is merely a byproduct of these ideas.
But reality is just the opposite. Qualia is what’s real here, not your ideas. Inertness is an idea, and mathematical descriptions of phenomena are ideas—but qualia is real.
The reality of matter is not its inertness, because right now, you are matter, and you are a sentient being. This is the true reality of matter, not the abstract ideas in your head about it.
These ideas are functional, just like how pheromone trails are functional for ants. But this is not reality; it’s only a picture you’ve created, inherited from others. Even knowing that the map is just a map, people can’t seem to detach themselves from it.
That’s true. Let me ask, what does reality mean to you?
How large a demographic do you imagine you’re interacting with here, compared say with atheists globally? You have also of course brought what appears to be a very closed mind, and lot of preconceived prejudices about what atheism is, and what atheists do and do not believe, and why.
It is clear that the more objective the evidence, and the more of it that supports a belief, the more likely that belief is to reflect objective reality. You’re rhetoric about hidden esoteric truths is not new, and not at all compelling, for that very reasons, and you can post false equivalences using facile ant analogies all you want.
“The other side”? What a telling turn of phrase, but no you don’t need to generalise, you could ask people what they believe, and what they don’t and why. Since you got here you have been preaching at people with a string of mostly unevidenced sweeping assertions.
The same facile analogy, that implies that objective reality is a screen to a magic world, I already know how pointless it is to ask if you can demonstrate any objective evidence to support the idea, or the fact science doesn’t need and doesn’t evidence any deity is somehow a flaw in those methods, except it is a fact that science can’t detect non-existence things, so if they are unfalsifiable and offer no datta, they are discarded as meaningless.
Straw man fallacy, I have made no such claim ever, I do accept that the universe exists, and that insert matter exist, it is you who is adding a deity you cannot objectively evidence, using magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, I merely follow the objective evidence, where it justifies any rational conclusion I form beliefs.
Straw man fallacy,
False dichotomy fallacy, my subjective perceptions are not what I base beliefs on, this has been explained countless times. Science and logic are not my ideas either, so that’s a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Straw man fallacy.
That’s a hasty generalisation fallacy.
Straw man fallacy. I rely on sufficient objective evidence to separate subjective bias from objective reality, whereas you indulge iit, with fanciful unevidenced and irrational superstition, because it makes you feel good.
You have some magic powers to tell others what is and is not reality now? I think you are no longer pretending to debate, but are simply preaching your own unevidenced superstitious beliefs now.
“Inert” is an indemonstrable concept. If you can, prove that there is no qualia in a stone.
Yes, you believe in inert matter, but I told you this is just an idea in your mind.
No, not just feeling good—be better, which is different and not necessarily pleasant.
No, you rely on the interpretation of the evidence.
I don’t need magic to tell you that ideas are not real; they are merely representations of reality.
No it isn’t?
If you can, demonstrate stones don’t turn into dragons whenever no one is looking? FYI I never made the claim you’re asking me to demonstrate, at some point you may grasp the epistemological difference between disbelief and opposing or contrary belief, but sadly “may grasp” is of course semantically identical to may not grasp.
inert
adjective
It is an idea in my head, as are all thoughts of course, but this one is not just an idea in my head.
That’s just an idea in your head, and good is a subjective idea anyway.
Do I control science, logic? That was a rather silly lie, come on now.
Well you’re not using objective evidence, and are decrying the best methods we have, while peddling unevidenced superstition, so I am sticking my assessment as it best matches the evidence, unless you offer something beyond sweeping unevidenced assertions, and raft of known logical fallacies, as you did here again, and swept passed them to clip the text you think gives you your next gotcha moment, and unfalsifiable ideas, while decrying those who base belief as closely as is possible on objective reality.
The presence or absence of qualia is impossible to demonstrate.
Don’t worry, your qualia, which are real, will notice the difference between good and bad.
Yes, ideas are representations in your brain; this is a well-known fact.
I don’t decry science; I decry extremism.
I repeat, your belief is based on a representation you’re constructing in your brain, and this is not an opinion. I don’t understand why we need to discuss this fact.
And this has what to do with the word inert that you introduced?
I am not worried, and my evolved consciousness can use reason of course, but good and bad remain subjective ideas.
And they can be based on objective evidence, or on subjective bias, and unevidenced wishful thinking, I use the former as a standard for credulity, while you are content to use the latter, because to me the truth is more important than the claim, but to you the belief is paramount, it is manifest everytime you post.
That’s just a subjective idea in your head, and your posts suggest otherwise. Panpsychism is not an idea that has any mainstream support within science, since it is unevidenced, unfalsifiable, untestable, and has no explanatory powers, so the extremist view is yours not mine. Or is extremism another word you don’t fully grasp, like inert?
Based on the best methods and objective evidence, unlike your ides which exist only in your fetid imagination.
Because your mendaciously misrepresenting the facts, as anyone can see. All human idea exist in the brain, this is trivially true, but they don’t all reflect objective reality, again this is trivially true. The best methods we have for separating the two are science and logic, and you are peddling an idea for which there is no scientific evidence or support, which is in fact unscientific as it is unfalsifiable, and using arguments that are relentlessly irrational. Though I’d accept the latter is your fault, and not necessarily panpsychism’s.
Understanding ‘inert’ as the absence of qualia.
However, suffering and pleasure are objective facts.
As I told you, your interpretation of the evidence is not the only possible one, nor necessarily the best one.
Science is not necessarily concerned with truth; it is more focused on practicality. As for logic, the two current models of reality, quantum physics and relativity, are mutually contradictory.
No it’s not, I quoted and linked the definition for you. You are offering a subjective interpretation to misrepresent an earlier comment of mine, I know the irony right.
Apples can be green or red, like tomatoes. Since we are offering irrelevant non-sequiturs.
It’s still a lie, as I don’t rely solely on a subjective interpretation as you do, when forming beliefs.
Of course if one wanted to cling to beliefs that are unsupported by any objective evidence, and which may be irrational, and are unfalsifiable, untestable, and that have no explanatory powers, then yes, I concur that your subjective bias and closed mind are a superior method for that.
No idea can be accepted by science or logic, if it is demonstrably untrue. In stark contrast to the superstitious claims of religions.
I sense you’re making a point again? is it about logic, be a dear and join the dots for me. Fuck it I have a few minutes, are you suggesting that because elements of two theories are mutually exclusive this violates the law of non-contradiction? Yes that’s it, woof what a relief. So you’re claiming that rationally one cannot accept all aspects of both theories right? I am right again aren’t I? Two for two, get in.
So what was your underlying point again?
I think that in this context, and in relation to qualia, the meaning of ‘inert’ is clear. Just my opinion.
Are good and bad unrelated to suffering and pleasure?
Such as dark matter
That our model based on reason and logic has failed to produce a coherent picture of reality.
Oh sheer comedy gold is too much, too too much. The meaning of inert is posted above, linked to a credible online dictionary, and available to anyone who cares to peruse a dictionary, if it says anything about qualia it will be fucking news to me, but unlike you i will recant my original claim if it does, as it would be expressing a belief I do not hold.
Not objectively no, obviously. Since good and bad are subjective ideas, the idea they relate to suffering is a subjective one.
I think my statement was unequivocal, it surely can’t need clarification, even for you?
Our? What model? I don’t think you know what logic is, or what it’s purpose is, but then by now, that was already self evident.
Context is important in dialogues, Sheldon.
This is a separate debate.
There are simulations of the universe that include dark matter… I don’t think you’re objecting to that.
Oh, I thought we were debating ideas.
Indeed it is, and in case anyone missed comedy gold of the context there, here it is again:
So you made this straw man claim:
I called you on it, then clarified here:
You followed up with a second (dubious) claim, and a second straw man, here:
You followed up with a third dubious claim:
I repudiated this, and offered the definition of inert as objective evidence.
As we see you then dishonestly switched back to your straw man of qualia, again anyone can look up inerts and see this was not what i was claiming. I responded accordingly:
You then doubled down on your previous false claim, even after the definition was offered by me, and ignored by you.
I took one last stab at clarifying what i had said, was not what you were claiming I had said, and offered the definition as objective evidence a second time. Pointing out the irony of you lying that I was offering only a subjective opinion, when it was you who was doing this:
You then admit it was just your opinion, but don’t of course acknowledge at any point that your opinion is at odds with the definition of the word, or that you had falsely accused me of offering a subjective opinion, here:
That was when I pointed out the comedy gold.
Perhaps, but you raised it not me, and good and bad remain subjective ideas.
So what? here is my original assertions for context.
Fuck me, I know you don’t read the post you’re responding to properly, but it seems you don’t even read your own? Here:
Well . . . science is a process, not the findings.
Science has given us antibiotics, anesthesia, modern surgery, etc… When has religion given us anything similar?
Also, science is self-correcting and can admit when it’s wrong.
I owe my life (and lives of people I love) to science many times over.
So, how is faith in this process unreasonable?
Fine, and I explained to you that we are using something unfalsifiable to simulate the universe. This is science as well.
So, are you implying that I was defending the idea that stones can walk?
Therefore, it’s perfectly logical for science to arrive at two contradictory models of reality. Fine.
I have said it many times, and I’ll repeat it again: the fact that something works does not mean it is the truth.
Is your faith in science justified? Yes.
Does that mean science is the truth? No.
I’m not saying anything strange here; I think it’s very obvious.
Did I claim anywhere that dark matter was an accepted scientific idea? Did I mention it all in fact? You are using a false equivalence fallacy yet again.
Hallelujah, @Kevin_Levites understood your false equivalence in a few seconds look.
Wtf are you talking about? Is English not your first language?
I think you are being deliberately obtuse now.
Like religions and mythology you mean?
Science is a collection or group of methods, what on earth are you talking about? If the conclusions it reaches, or the odeas it accepts (as correct) were untrue, it’d be of no more use than religion. Science is not infallible, but it discards and amends what the evidence demands it must, unlike religions.
That’s debatable.
Great, now explain why you think this. I already did so, and was buried in an avalanche of straw man claims.
Hi Sheldon,
May I ask why you feel God is “morally repugnant?” And if you were to believe in a deity, which one would you believe in?
No, I’m telling you that science uses unfalsifiable concepts in its simulations of the universe.
What do you think I was implying by ‘inert’ when I said that ‘inert is an indemonstrable concept’?
I’m telling you that science has two contradictory models of reality that make conflicting predictions. This proves what I said: scientific models don’t show us reality, but rather a picture we’ve created.
Did I say we have to discard them? No, I just said that these theories are probably not the truth.
Science also includes models and other elements. Perhaps you’re referring to the scientific method?
There are incorrect models that make accurate predictions.
It is justified because it worked for him, but that doesn’t mean it’s the truth.